New threads (topics) in the Thunderblogs/Multimedia forum are only to be initiated by Forum Administrators. This is the place for users to comment on or discuss aspects of any individual Thunderblog or Thunderbolts multimedia post.

One outstanding characteristic of our modern technological world is the use of ‘standard modules’. For example, suppose you are asked to set up the appointment schedule and billing procedure for a law firm or a doctor’s office. What you need, of course, is a ‘database’ program. There are many good ones available for purchase on the software market. After you buy one and learn how to use it, you can spend your time productively adding and updating clients names and information to this database. It would be wasteful of time and effort to try to construct this entire computer program from scratch using, say, Visual Basic, or some other low-level programming language. Just buy it and add information to it – the hard work of creating the structure of almost any generic data base has already been done... [more...]

It appears that "reconnection" was already deemed 'inappropriate' in the 1970's! Why are astronomers still using this faulty tool, rather than the suggestion that a much simpler "circuit" approach like that from the lab would be a better fit?

Experimental and theoretical aspects of the fundamental process of magnetic flux transfer (‘field line reconnection’) are reviewed. Explosively rapid events are observed in a laboratory magnetoplasma device designed to test certain aspects of neutral point theories of the solar flare mechanism. In these events, ultra-fast release of magnetic energy through reconnection of field lines is effected by a conduction mode instability in which an abrupt upward transition to anomalous resistivity takes place in the neighbourhood of the X-point. The events are triggered when the X-point current densityexceeds the conduction mode instability threshold. The energy that is released is that which is associated with the induced current system that supports field line reconnection under ordinary quiescent conditions. Many characteristics of the laboratory events and their associated phenomena, when appropriately scaled, show remarkable agreement with corresponding flare observational data. Some new directions for further development of flare theory are therefore recommended. These experiments indicate that a number of assumptions commonly made in theoretical analysis of the reconnection process are inappropriate. The flux transfer process can be well understood theoretically in terms of a simple circuit analogue which models the laboratory process.

It seems like they'd already questioned and probably invalidated the notion of "magnetic reconnection," suggesting a replacement electrical model, as early as 1976! That from the Geophysical Journal International. Completely independent of (and probably prior to) anything Electric Universe related. Amazing how multiple lines of inquiry lead to the same conclusion...

It boggles the mind that astronomers are still using the "reconnection" concept (erroneously sidestepping the underlying currents), despite lab results that appear to refute it (and suggest considering the electrical processes involved)!

Cheers,~Michael Gmirkin

"The purpose of science is to investigate the unexplained, not to explain the uninvestigated." ~Dr. Stephen Rorke"For every PhD there is an equal and oppositePhD." ~Gibson's law

Ignore most of the MHD and "reconnection" babble. Look at the images at the end that show the magnetic field configurations. Then read up on the "right hand rule" [1], [2] for comparison. Working backwards, one can infer from the images that currents are flowing and that currents are reconfiguring, thus leading to the magnetic field topology changes (one could make a similarly permissible argument that there is a feedback system whereby changes in the magnetic field in turn influence the configuration of the electric currents; however, cutting electric currents out of the discussion would be an egregious error).

One need also only look at a few sites that detail the relation between currents and magnetic fields.

Electric fields are created by differences in voltage: the higher the voltage, the stronger will be the resultant field. Magnetic fields are created when electric current flows: the greater the current, the stronger the magnetic field. An electric field will exist even when there is no current flowing. If current does flow, the strength of the magnetic field will vary with power consumption but the electric field strength will be constant.(Extract from Electromagnetic fields published by the WHO Regional Office for Europe in 1999 (Local authorities, health and environment briefing pamphlet series; 32).

()

People not familiar with magnetism often view it as a somewhat mysterious property of specially treated iron or steel.

[...]

It is all related to electricity.

[...]

Close to 1800 it was found that when the ends of a chemical "battery" were connected by a metal wire, a steady stream of electric charges flowed in that wire and heated it. That flow became known as an electric current. In a simplified view, what happens is that electrons hop from atom to atom in the metal.

In 1821 Hans Christian Oersted in Denmark found, unexpectedly, that such an electric current caused a compass needle to move. An electric current produced a magnetic force!

Andre-Marie Ampere in France soon unraveled the meaning. The fundamental nature of magnetism was not associated with magnetic poles or iron magnets, but with electric currents. The magnetic force was basically a force between electric currents (figure below):

[Figure]--Two parallel currents in the same direction attract each other.--Two parallel currents in opposite directions repel each other.

Here is how this can lead to the notion of magnetic poles. Bend the wires into circles with constant separation (figure below):

[Figure]--Two circular currents in the same direction attract each other.--Two circular currents in opposite directions repel each other.

[...]

In space, on the Sun and in the Earth's core, electric currents are the only source of magnetism. We loosely refer to the region of their influence as their magnetic field, a term which will be further discussed later.

Wikipedia wrote:The electromagnetic field is a physical field produced by electrically charged objects. It affects the behavior of charged objects in the vicinity of the field.

[...]

The field can be viewed as the combination of an electric field and a magnetic field. The electric field is produced by stationary charges, and the magnetic field by moving charges (currents); these two are often described as the sources of the field. The way in which charges and currents interact with the electromagnetic field is described by Maxwell's equations and the Lorentz force law.

Then take a look at Don Scott's paper on "Real Properties of Electromagnetic Fields and Plasma in the Cosmos." You'll note that his diagrams of an electrical explanation of "magnetic reconnection" observed by Cluster, et al, appear to be directly in line with a number of the images of the MHD simulation which shows interacting parallel currents (just as Don Scott described in his paper; occasional comments on BAUT about "how badly Don Scott misunderstands the science" seem to right ever-so-hollow).

Taken together, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Electric currents are the sole source of magnetic fields. When a current changes its magnetic topology is immediately redrawn (no "reconnection" of field-lines required; nor tin snips and duct tape). Don Scott's model of parallel interacting currents and their resultant magnetic fields (the attraction / repulsion between electric currents) is borne out even in MHD simulations. Currents in space can no longer be swept aside and ignored or marginalized. They are the SOURCE of the magnetic fields observed ubiquitously in space. Emphatic denials by standard model supporters aside.

I was very unaware of just how many people in Portland conducted classes on Cosmology until I read a barrage of online reviews that informed and excited me. Now I visit three groups a month and love it. Have you guys ever heard of angies list for online reviews?